This world is the result of modification (pariṇāma) of Parabrahman, and Parabrahman Himself manifests in the form of the world—this is the essence of the doctrine of transformation (pārīṇāmavāda) aligns with the Upanishads:
“तदात्मानं स्वयमकुरुत “ (Taittirīya Upanishad, Brahmānanda Vallī, 7.1)
(“Brahman created Itself in the form of the world by Itself”)
And the opinion of Vyāsadeva in Brahma Sūtras also states:
“आत्मकृतेः परिणामात् “ (Brahma sūtra 1.4.26)
(“Brahman Himself modified into the form of the world.”).
Śrīman Mahāprabhu also declared:
“ব্যাসের সূত্রেতে করে পরিণামবাদ”
“vyāsera sūtrete kare pariṇāma vāda”
(Śrī Caitanya-caritāmṛta, Ādi-līlā 1.7.114)
“বস্তুতঃ পরিণামবাদ সেই ত প্রমাণ”
“vastutaḥ pariṇāmavāda sei ta pramāṇa”
(Śrī Caitanya-caritāmṛta, Ādi-līlā 1.7.116)
Does the entirety of Brahman get modified or only a part of Brahman gets modified?
A question may arise—if the world is a modification of Brahman, has the entire Brahman modified into the world, or has only a part of Brahman been transformed into the form of the world?
The answer to this question is as follows:
First, regarding the modification of the entire Brahman:
The aphorism “कृत्स्नप्रसक्तिर्निरवयवत्वशब्दव्याकोपो वा” ॥2.1.26॥” — “Either the consequence of the entire (Brahman undergoing modification) has to be accepted, or else (there will be) a violation of the texts declaring Brahman to be without parts.”
Sri Shankara says regarding this: कृत्स्नपरिणामप्रसक्तौ सत्यां मूलोच्छेदः प्रसज्येत द्रष्टव्यतोपदेशानर्थक्यं च आपद्येत अयत्नदृष्टत्वात्कार्यस्य तद्व्यतिरिक्तस्य च ब्रह्मणोऽसंभवात् अजत्वादिशब्दव्याकोपश्च ।
(Therefore, a partial modification is impossible, If a modification of the entire Brahman is assumed then that involves a cutting off of Brahman from its very basis.–Another consequence of the Vedântic view is that the texts exhorting us to strive ‘to see’ Brahman become purposeless; for the effects of Brahman may be seen without any endeavour, and apart from them no Brahman exists.–And, finally, the texts declaring Brahman to be unborn are contradicted thereby.–If, on the other hand–in order to escape from these difficulties–we assume Brahman to consist of parts, we thereby do violence to those texts which declare Brahman not to be made up of parts.)
If it is accepted that the entirety of Brahman is transformed into the world, then the original (mūla) Brahman would be “used up” or would not longer exist. In other words, if the entirety of Bahman were to transform into the form of the world, nothing of Brahman itself would remain.
((This idea can be understood through the logic that the unchanging essence of Brahman must be preserved, and any notion of total transformation would contradict the eternal and foundational nature of Brahman.))
If there is nothing left of Brahman in its original form, then the scriptural injunctions that declare :
“आत्मा वा अरे दृष्टव्यः श्रोतव्यो मन्तव्यो निदिध्यसितव्यः”
(बृहदारण्यक उपनिषद् : 2/4/5)
[“The Self (Brahman) should be heard (i.e., learned about), reflected upon, and meditated upon.”]
This statement also becomes meaningless. This is because any effect (kārya) is naturally perceivable without effort. If the world itself were considered the tangible Brahman(in the form of effect) due to its being a modification of the causal Brahman(which has been used up after giving rise to the world), then Bahman(which is verily the visible world itself) is easily perceivable and no effort in the form of meditation (dhyāna) or contemplation (dhāranā) is required to perceive it. Consequently, there is no need for scriptural instructions to perceive it, and such instructions would become pointless.
Furthermore, if the entire Brahman is transformed into the world, leaving no Brahman beyond or, other than what is visible as the world, then it is impossible and useless to have any realization(दर्शन) of (the causal) Brahman in any manner. In such a scenario, scriptural injunctions directing the students of the Vedanta for the realisation of Brahman (ब्रह्मदर्शन) would also become meaningless.
Additionally, if it is accepted that the entirety of Brahman has transformed into the world, the scriptural statements describing Brahman as unborn (aja), immortal (amṛta), etc., would also lose their validity. This is because, with the creation and dissolution of the world, it would have to be accepted that Brahman also undergoes creation and dissolution.
Through this reasoning of Śrīpāda Śaṅkara, it becomes clear that the entirety of Brahman does not transform into the world.
Scriptural Evidence
There is also scriptural evidence supporting this conclusion. The Māṇḍūkya Upaniṣad (1st mantra) declares:
“ओमित्येतदक्षरमिदं सर्वं तस्योपव्याख्यानं भूतं भवद्भविष्यदिति सर्वमोङ्कार एव ।यच्चान्यत्त्रिकालातीतं तदप्योङ्कार एव ॥”
(“Oṁ, the word, is all this. A clear explanation of it (is the following). All that is past, present and future is verily Oṁ. That which is beyond the triple conception of time, is also truly Oṁ.”)
From this, it is understood that this perceptible world is rooted in(or is a form of) that which is referred to by the word Oṁ (Brahman), and the triple conception of time is also rooted in(or is a form of) Brahman. Whatever exists beyond the influence of Time is also Brahman alone.
Therefore, it is evident that the entirety of Brahman does not transform into the form of the world, as Brahman beyond time would not exist if the entirety of Brahman were transformed into this Time-influenced world.
Evidence from the Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad
In the third chapter of the Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad, seventh Brāhmaṇa, it is stated from the series of verses beginning with:
“यः पृथिव्यां तिष्ठन्पृथिव्या अन्तरः, यं पृथिवी न वेद, यस्य पृथिवी शरीरं, यः पृथिवीमन्तरो यमयति, एष त आत्मान्तर्याम्यमृतः” (Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad 3.7.3)
[He who inhabits the earth, yet is within the earth, whom the earth does not know, whose body the earth is and who controls the earth from within-He is your Self, the Inner Controller, the Immortal.]
And concluding with:
“यो रेतसि तिष्ठं रेतसोऽन्तरः, यम रेतो न वेद, यस्य रेतः शरीरम्, यो रेतोऽन्तरो यमयति, एषा ता आत्मान्तर्याम्यमृतः” (Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad 3.7.22)
[He who inhabits the seed, yet is within the seed, whom the seed does not know, whose body the seed is and who controls the seed from within-He is your Self, the Inner Controller, the Immortal.]
In these series of verses, it is declared that Brahman, while present within the created elements like earth, etc., remains distinct from them. This also confirms that Brahman exists beyond the created world, and thus the entirety of Brahman does not transform Itself into the form of this world.
Modification of a Part of Brahman
If the entirety of Brahman does not transform into the world, then it must be accepted that only a part of Brahman has transformed into the form of the world. Since the world is finite or limited, it must also be accepted that a finite portion of Brahman, just like a fragment broken off from a large rock, has transformed into the form of this world.
The response to the above assertion is as follows: Brahman, being all-pervading, cannot have any part, like a fragment broken off from a rock. For this reason, the śruti describes Brahman as “niṣkalam“ (partless). Only finite objects with distinct and separable forms, such as the earth and other material entities, can have parts resembling fragments of a rock. Brahman, being sac-cid-ānanda (eternal existence, consciousness, and bliss), does not have any such material form; therefore, It cannot have any part like a fragment of a rock. Consequently, it is also unreasonable to assume that such a part of Brahman has been transformed into this world.
If such an assumption were accepted, it would conflict with the scriptural statements that assert Brahman’s formlessness (nirākāratā). Moreover, if Brahman were to be assumed to possess such a form, it would also imply impermanence, because all material forms are by nature impermanent.
In the commentary on the Brahma Sūtra “कृत्स्नप्रसक्तिर्निर्वयवत्वशब्दव्याकोपो वा” (2.1.26), Śrīpāda Śaṅkara states:
“अथैतद्दोषपरिजिहीर्षया साभयवमेष—ब्रह्मात्म-उपगम्येत, तथापि ये निरवयवत्वस्थायी प्रतिद्पादकाः शब्दा उदाहृताः, ते प्रकुप्येरः; साभयवत्त्वे च अनित्यत्वप्रसङ्गः।”
(“To avoid these defects, if Brahman were to be assumed to have a form, then it would contradict the scriptural statements that assert Brahman’s formlessness. Furthermore, if Brahman were assumed to have a form, it would result in the defect of impermanence.”)
Thus, it is evident that no part of Brahman can be transformed into the world.
Even though the transformation of the whole or a part of Brahman is impossible, the world being a modification of Brahman is established by Scripture
A question may arise: It has been said that the world is a transformation of Brahman. However, it has also been stated that neither the entirety of Brahman transforms, nor can any part of Brahman, like a fragment of a rock, undergo transformation, because Brahman has no such parts. Then, what is the meaning of saying that the world is a transformation of Brahman?
The author of the Brahma Sūtra, Vyāsadeva, has addressed this question in the following sūtra:
“श्रुतेस्तु शब्दमूलत्वात् ” (Brahma Sūtra 2.1.27).
This doubt is resolved through the evidence of śruti (scripture). Since Brahman is known only through scriptural testimony, śruti alone is the valid means of knowledge in this regard.
In his commentary on this Brahma Sūtra, Śrīpāda Śaṅkara explains its purport as follows: Brahman is understood solely through the authority of śabda (scriptural testimony). Brahman cannot be known through sensory evidence, perception, inference, or analogy. In other words, there is no means of knowing Brahman through direct perception, logical inference, or comparison. Only through scriptural evidence (śruti) can knowledge of Brahman be attained.
The śruti declares that the world originates from Brahman, yet Brahman remains distinct from the world.
“यथैव हि ब्रह्मणो जगदुत्पत्तिः श्रूयते, एवं विकारव्यतिरेकेणापि ब्रह्मणोऽवस्थानं श्रूयते।”
“Just as the emergence of the world from Brahman is heard (in scriptures), the existence of Brahman without undergoing alteration is also similarly heard (i.e., affirmed by scriptures).”
In the material world, we observe that certain objects like gems, mantras, and potent medicines, due to their inconceivable powers, produce various effects influenced by variations in time, place, and circumstances. The extraordinary capabilities of gems and mantras cannot be understood merely through logic or reasoning without proper instruction. Similarly, when the utility or effectiveness of certain objects depends on specific conditions and cannot be known without guidance, how can the inconceivable potency of Brahman, which transcends ordinary reasoning, be comprehended without the aid of scripture?
The Purāṇas also affirm:
“अचिन्त्याः खलु ये भावाः न तांस्तर्केण योजयेत्।
प्रकृतिभ्यः परं यद्यत्तदचिन्त्यस्य लक्षणम्।”
(“Those entities that are ‘Acintya’ can not be (ultimately) subjected to reasoning. That which transcends material nature is the characteristic of the thing ‘Acintya’.”)
Therefore, it is said that knowledge of the nature of transcendental objects is based on scriptural authority and cannot be derived through sensory perception or other means of empirical evidence.
In Govinda bhāshya, the Brahma-sūtra 2.1.27 is commented upon as follows:
“अथैतौ दोषौ (एतौ कृत्स्नप्रसक्त्यादि दोषौ स्यातां सम्भवेतां प्रवर्त्तते ब्रह्मेत्यर्थात्।) ब्रह्मकर्तृत्वपक्षे स्यातां न वेति वीक्षायां, सर्वेषु कार्येषु कृत्स्नेन स्वरूपेण चेत् प्रवर्त्तते, तर्हि तृणोदञ्चनादौ कृत्स्नस्य प्रसक्तिर्न च सा सम्भवेदंशेन तत्सिद्धेः। क्वचिदंशेन चेत् प्रवर्त्तते तर्हि निष्फलं निष्क्रियम्’ (श्वे० ६/१९) इत्यादि श्रुतिव्याकोपापत्तिरतः, स्यातामिति प्राप्ते -“
[The objector may say that Brahman is also entire and indivisible(like the Jīva), therefore if in all acts He puts Himself in His entirety than in raising straw, etc., He will employ His entire powers, but that is not possible, because it is done by a fraction of His power,or rather it is possible to be accomplished by a portion of His power. On the other hand, if He puts in only a portion of His power in any activity, then there is violence done to those texts which declare Brahman to be partless and actionless. Thus the same two objections apply in the case of Brahman being the agent, as in the case of the Jiva. To this the author replies.]
॥श्रुतेस्तु शब्द मूलत्वात्॥
[But the above defects do not apply in the case of Brahman, because the scriptures so declare it, and the Word of God alone is the root from which we learn anything about these transcendental subjects.]
“ब्रह्मकर्तृत्वपक्षे लोकदृष्टा दोषा न स्युः। कुतः ? श्रुतेः । ‘अलौकिकमचिन्त्यं ज्ञानात्मकमपि मूर्तं ज्ञानवच्चैकमेव बहुधावभातञ्च निरंशमपि सांशञ्च मितमप्यमितञ्च सर्वकर्तृ निर्विकारञ्च ब्रह्म’ इति श्रवणादेवेत्यर्थः। तथाहि ‘बृहच्च तद्दिव्यमचिन्त्यरूपम्’ इति मुण्डके (३/१/७) अलौकिकत्वादि श्रुतम्। ‘तमेकं गोविन्दं सच्चिदानन्दविग्रहम्।’ (गो०ता० ४६) ‘बर्हापीडाभिरामाय रामायाकुण्ठमेधसे।’ (गो०ता० ५) ‘एकोऽपि सन् बहुधा योऽवभाति’ इति गोपालोपनिषदि (गो०ता०२३) ज्ञानात्मकत्वादिति। ‘अमात्रोऽनन्तमात्रश्च द्वैतस्योपशमः शिव’ इति माण्डुक्योपनिषदि (१/२) निरंशत्वेऽपि सांशत्वम्। ‘आसीनो दूरं व्रजति शयानो याति सर्वत’ इति काठके (१/२/२१) मितत्वेऽप्यमितत्वञ्च । ‘द्यावाभूमी जनयन् देव एकः। (श्वे० ३/३) ‘एष देवो विश्वकर्मा महात्मा।’ (श्वे० ४/१७) ‘स विश्वकृद् विश्वहृदात्मयोनि’ (श्वे० ६/१६) ‘निष्कलं निष्क्रियं शान्तं निरवद्यं निरञ्जनम्’ (श्वे० ६/१६) इति श्वेताश्वतरश्रुतौ सर्वकर्तृत्त्वेऽपि निर्विकारत्वञ्चेत्येतत् सर्वं श्रुत्यनुसारेणैव स्वीकार्य न तु केवलया युक्त्या प्रतिविधेयमिति।” [In the case of Brahman being the agent, the above imperfections do not apply. Why do we say so? Because the scripture declares it to be so, such as- ‘Brahman is transcendental, inconceivable, pure knowledge and yet He has a form, He is possessed of knowledge; and though He is one, He is manifold also, and though He is partless He has parts, and though He is im-measureable He is yet measured, He is the creator of all, yet unmodified Himself’.
Similarly, in the Mundaka Upanisad(III. 1. 7): “बृहच्च तद्दिव्यमचिन्त्यरूपं सूक्ष्माच्च तत्सूक्ष्मतरं विभाति । दूरात्सुदूरे तदिहान्तिके च पश्यन्त्विहैव निहितं गुहायाम् ॥” [That(Brahman) shines as vast, heavenly, of unthinkable form and subtler than the subtle, much farther than the distant, near, also here, and seen fixed in the cavity (of the heart), by the intelligent.].
This text also shows the paradoxical and transcendental powers of Brahman.
Similarly, one text (Gopāla-tāpani-upanishad 46) says:-‘तमेकं गोविन्दं सच्चिदानन्दविग्रहम्।‘-[Lord Govinda is without parts, is one, His form is mere existence, intelligence and bliss]. While another text (Gopāla-tāpani-upanishad 5) says:-‘बर्हापीडाभिरामाय रामायाकुण्ठमेधसे।’ [He has a crown of peacock hair, has a very pleasant form and unobstructed intelligence.] In the Gopala-tāpani Upanisad(23), we also read: ‘एकोऽपि सन् बहुधा योऽवभाति’ [Though one He shines forth as many].
In the Mândukya Upanisad(1.2), we find Him described as partless and yet having parts:
‘अमात्रोऽनन्तमात्रश्च द्वैतस्योपशमः शिवः । ओङ्कारो विदितो येन स मुनिर्नेतरो जनः ॥‘
[He who knows the Lord as partless and yet full of infinity of parts, as the destroyer of duality and blissful, is verily a sage and no one else; he is verily a sage and no one else.]
Similarly in the Kathopanisad (1.2.21) we find Him described as measured though immeasureable:
आसीनो दूरं व्रजति शयानो याति सर्वतः। कस्तं मदामदं देवं मदन्यो ज्ञातुमर्हति ॥ [While sitting, He moves away, while lying down, He moves everywhere. Who other than me(who has obtained His grace) is fit to know this Deity, who is rapture and the transcendence of rapture?].
So also the Shvetashvatara Upanishad(III.3) says:
“विश्वतश्चक्षुरुत विश्वतोमुखो विश्वतोबाहुरुत विश्वतस्पात्। सं बाहुभ्यां धमति संपतत्रैर्द्यावाभूमी जनयन्देव एकः॥”
[That one God, having His eyes, His face, His arms, and His feet in every place, when producing heaven and earth, forges them together with His arms and His wings.] So also in Svetasvatara Upanisad(IV. 17):
“एष देवो विश्वकर्मा महात्मा सदा जनानां हृदये सन्निविष्टः। हृदा मनीषा मनसाभिक्लृप्तो य एतद्विदुरमृतास्ते भवन्ति॥”
[This is the God, the mighty Soul, the Architect of all, seated for ever in the hearts of creatures and he is realised by the heart and the intellect and the mind; who know this, they become immortal.] So also in Svetasvatara Upanisad(VI.16):-“स विश्वकृद्विश्वविदात्मयोनिर्ज्ञः कालकारो गुणी सर्वविद् यः। प्रधानक्षेत्रज्ञपतिर्गुणेशः संसारमोक्षस्थितिबन्धहेतुः॥”
[He is the creator of all, He is the heart of all, the Atman, the Womb(material cause) the Omniscient, the Creator of time, possessed of all auspicious attributes and knowing all. He is the Lord of all matter and spirits, He is the Lord of all gunas, He is the cause of transmigratory existence and release, bondage and freedom.] However in the same Svetasvatara Upanisad(VI.19), the following is also stated:
“निष्कलं निष्क्रिय शान्तं निरवद्यं निरञ्जनम्।अमृतस्य पर सेतुं दग्धेन्दनमिवानलम्॥”
[He is partless and actionless, pure and taintless, all peace. He is the supreme bridge of immortality, He is like fire that remains when the fuel is all burnt.]
These texts of Śvetasvatara Upanisad show that although the Lord is the doer of various actions, He still remains unmodified. Thus it shows very distinctly the possession by the Lord of powers which appear to us self-contradictory, and hence apparently impossible. But in matters transcendental, we are to be guided by scripture and not by our mere reasoning.
“ननु श्रुत्यापि बाधितार्थकं कथं बोधनीयं तत्राह शब्देति। अविचिन्त्यार्थस्य शब्दैकप्रमाणत्वादित्यर्थः । तादृशे मणिमन्त्रादौ दृष्टं ह्येतत् प्रकृते कैमुत्यमापादयति। इदमत्र निष्कृष्टम्। प्रत्यक्षानुमानशब्दाः प्रमाणानि भवन्ति। प्रत्यक्षं तावत् व्यभिचारि दृष्टं मायामुण्डावलोके चैत्रस्येदं मुण्डमित्यादौ। वृष्ट्या तत्कालनिर्वापितवह्नौ चिरमधिकद्वित्वरधूमे पर्वतो वहिमान् धूमादित्यनुमानञ्च। आप्तवाक्यलक्षणः शब्दस्तु न क्वापि व्यभिचरति – हिमालये हिमं, रत्नालये रत्नमित्यादि। स हि तदनुग्राही तन्निरपेक्षस्तदगत्ये साधकतमश्च। दृष्टचरमायामुण्डस्य पुंसो भ्रान्त्या सत्येऽप्यविश्वस्ते तदेवेदमित्याकाशवाण्यादौ । ‘अरे शीतार्त्ताः पान्था मास्मिन् वहिं सम्भावयत दृष्टमस्माभिः स इदानीं वृष्ट्यैव निर्वाणः। किन्त्वमुस्मिन् धूमोद्रारिणि गिरौ स दृश्यत’ इत्यादौ च तदुभयानुग्राहिता। मणिकण्ठस्त्वमसीत्यादौ तन्निरपेक्षता। तदगम्ये ग्रहचेष्टादौ साधकतमता चेति शब्दस्य सर्वतः श्रेष्ठ्यै स्थिते ब्रह्मबोधकस्तु श्रुतिशब्द एव। ‘नावेदविन्मनुते तं बृहन्तम्’ (तै० ब्रा० ३।१२।७) इत्यादि श्रवणात् स्वतःसिद्धत्वेन निर्दोषत्वाच्चेति ॥”
[But, says an objector, are we to renounce our reason in favour of scripture, when there is pure contradiction, such as the assertion, the fire has drenched the cloth? Is not such a statement a logical absurdity? To this the Sûtra replies “Sabda-mûlatvat.” The knowledge of Brahman and His attributes being founded on the scripture, and the scripture alone, we have no right to say that the scriptures are illogical, if they describe Brahman as having attributes which are paradoxical. These inexplicable attributes must be accepted by us with regard to Brahman, because the only proof of Brahman is the ‘Shabda’ alone. Nor is it so mysterious altogether. We see some distant analogy of it in the inconceivable powers of certain gems and charms to produce magical effects. Because a thing is inexplicable or inconceivable, there is no reason to hold it impossible.To sum up: there are three sorts of proofs, namely- sensuous (pratyaksa), inferential (anumāna) and scriptural authority or the word of God (sabda). In the case of first two kinds of knowledge, there is always room for mistake and hallucination. Thus a sensuous perception may be a pure hallucination, caused either by hypnotic suggestion or disease of the senses. A man may see a person standing in front of him, or the cut off head of Chitra, while as a matter of fact this may be all due to pure hypnotism. Thus “Pratyaksa” or sense-knowledge is not always absolutely reliable. Similarly, the knowledge based upon inference is also liable to error. Ordinarily the proposition is true when we say “there is no smoke without fire;” but in some cases, the person would not be justified in inferring the existence of fire from mere smoke. A great fire, when quenched by water, gives rise to a large amount of smoke, a person seeing such smoke and suffering from cold nay go to the place where that smoke is rising from, but will be disappointed when he sees there charred coals and no fire. Thus inference is also liable to error. The only proof which is free from all these possibilities of errors is the word, whether it is the word of God as recorded in the scripture or the word of an inspired sage called Āpta or the perfect, or the word of a person who is competent and honest. Thus the statements “There is snow on the tops of the Himalayas”, “there are gems in the depths of the Oceans” are always true. The word not only corroborates perception and reason, it is sometimes independent of both, and often declares that which neither reason nor perception can ever tell us. Thus a man who has been once deceived by seeing an illusory decapitated head may take a real decapitated head to be an illusion. But when he is told, by a divine voice from the sky(ākāshavānī) that it is a real head and not an illusion, his ignorance is removed and he gets true knowledge. So also a traveller suffering from cold, may be running towards the place where smoke is rising, thinking that he will find relief there. But a person who knows the real nature of that smoke, may save him from disappointment, by saying “do not go there, there is no fire, smoke is rising from the fire that has just been quenched by the rains.” The ‘Shabda’ as an instrument of proof supports and corroborates perception and inference. Thus a man may have a jewel necklace on his throat, but having forgotten it may be searching it everywhere. But when he is told “thou hast the necklace on thy throat”; he is saved all further trouble and anxiety. So also the ‘Shabda’ is the only means of knowing things which cannot be known either by perception or reason, or at least, which cannot be known by every man by his own perception and reason. Thus the movements of the heavenly bodies and their influences, have been declared to us by the astronomers and the experts in that department. The ‘Shabda’, therefore, of these persons is our only means of knowing when a certain celestial phenomenon will take place, such as an eclipse or the rising of a comet. Thus here also we see, that the ‘Shabda’ is a higher means of knowledge, than our own perception or reason. In worldly matters, the ‘Shabda’ is admittedly superior in its probative force to perception and reason. Much more is it so in matters other-worldly, where we have to depend on the testimony of seers and saints, and the highest testimony of all, the word of God or Scripture.
As says the Śruti:
‘नावेदविन्मनुते तं बृहन्तम्’ (Taittirīya Brāhmaṇa, 3.12.7)
[“The non-knower of Vedas can never think even of the Supreme.”]
Therefore, the scripture being self-proved, is not open to any objections.
The essence is this: due to Brahman’s inconceivable potency (acintya-śakti), He can transform into the form of the world without undergoing total or partial transformation Himself. Since the śruti has declared this, it must be accepted as authoritative.
Vyāsadeva also refers to Brahman’s inconceivable potency in the subsequent sūtra:
“आत्मनि चैवं विचित्राश्च हि” (२।१।२८, ब्रह्मसूत्र)।
In his commentary on this sūtra, Śrīpāda Rāmānuja explains its meaning as follows: The powers (śakti) of Brahman are diverse. In the material world, we observe objects such as fire and water, which are fundamentally different from each other, possessing distinct qualities or powers. Fire has the power to generate heat, which water does not. Water has the property of extinguishing fire, which fire does not possess.
If such diverse powers are seen in visible entities like fire and water, then it is not inconsistent to accept that the transcendental Brahman (param Brahman), who is fundamentally distinct from all material entities, possesses innumerable and extraordinary powers that are not observed elsewhere.
This is also accepted in the Govinda-Bhāṣya, in the commentary to Sutra 2.1.28:
||आत्मनि चैवं विचित्राश्च हि ||
“And thus is the power of the Self, because manifold objects are seen(to be produced from the tree-of-all-desires).”
यथा कल्पद्रुमचिन्तामण्यादेरीश्वरविभूतिभूतस्याचिन्त्यशक्तिमात्र सिद्धा हस्त्यश्वादयो विचित्राः सृष्टयो भवन्तीति शब्दात् प्रतीत्य श्रद्धीयते एवमात्मनश्च सर्वेश्वरस्य विष्णोर्देवनरतिर्यगादयस्तास् तथाभूता भवेयुरिति तस्मादेव श्रद्धेयम् | अचिन्त्यवस्तुस्वभावस्य तदेकगम्यत्वात् तत्र यथा कृत्स्नेन स्वरूपेण सृज्यन्ते स्वरूपांशेन वा व्यवस्थया वेति युक्तेर्नावकाशस्तथा प्रकृतेऽपीति | तस्मात् यथाश्रुतमेव स्वीकार्यम् | सप्तम्यन्तनिर्देशः कार्याधारत्वविवक्षया | दार्ष्टान्तिके कैमुत्यद्योतनाय परश्च शब्दः | हि-शब्देन पुराणादिप्रसिद्धिः सूच्यते | तस्मात् ब्रह्मकर्तृत्वपक्षः श्रेयान् ||
“As from the Tree-of-all-desires or from the philosopher’s stone, they being vibhūtis of the Lord and possessing inexplicable mysterious powers, there come out elephants, horses, etc., and as these wonderful creations are mysterious, and are accepted as credible simply on the authority of scriptures. Similar is the power of the Ātman, the Lord of all, the Supreme Vişnu, who gives rise to Devas, men, and lower beings. If we can believe, on the authority of scriptures, in the wonderful powers of the Tree-of-all-desires, or in the philosopher’s stone, why should we not believe, on the same authority, in the mysterious powers of the Lord. It is scripture alone that gives us any information of the existence of these mysterious things. We do not question, when animals come out of the Tree-of-all-desire, whether they are created by the entire tree or by a portion of it, or whether any particular part of the tree has power to produce any particular animal. We see and mark the result, and leave the thing as a mystery, admitting that there is no scope for reasoning here. Similar is the case of the Lord in His creative agency. We should not question whether the Lord in the entirety of His Svarūpa is involved in any particular creative act, or whether it is done by a portion of His Svarūpa. We must simply accept the statement of scriptures as we receive it. The word “Ātmani” is exhibited in the locative case in the sûtra in order to show that the Self is the receptacle or support of all effects. The second “ca” is in order to indicate that when such wonderful things are believed by us as the existence of the Tree-of-all-desires, or the philosopher’s stone, why should we hesitate to believe in the mysterious power of the Lord. The word “hi” implies that the facts above mentioned are well known in all these Purâņas, etc. Therefore, the conclusion is that the theory that Brahman is the agent of creation, is (more) reasonable [than the theory of any Jiva being such agent].”
Scriptural Evidence of Brahman’s Inconceivable Potency
In the Viṣṇu Purāṇa, Maitreya asks Parāśara:
“निर्गुणस्याप्रमेयस्य शुद्धस्याप्यमलात्मनः। कथं सर्गादिकर्तृत्वं ब्रह्मणोऽभ्युपगम्यते॥”
(“How is it that Brahman, which is nirguṇa (devoid of ontic qualities), immeasurable, pure [meaning either “devoid of a body”(from the point of view of Maitreya’s questioning due to his own assumption) or “devoid of assistants”(from the point of view of Parāśara’s clarifying answer)], and of spotless nature, is accepted as the creator of the universe and other phenomena?”)
At first glance, it may appear that Brahman, characterized by the aforementioned attributes, cannot possibly have the ability to create and perform other cosmic activities. To address this question, Sage Parāśara responded to Maitreya:
“शक्तयः सर्वभावानामचिन्त्यज्ञानगोचराः। यतो ह्यतो ब्रह्मणस्तास् ताः सर्गास्ता भावशक्तयः।भवन्ति तपतां श्रेष्ठ पावकस्य यथोष्णता॥” (Viṣṇu Purāṇa, 1.3.2)
“Since all the powers and attributes of entities are beyond the reach of thought and knowledge, O foremost among ascetics, Maitreya, similarly, the powers of creation and others of Brahman are natural, like the heat of fire. That is, just as the heat of fire is inexplicable and innate (the cause of fire’s heat cannot be determined through reasoning, nor can we explain why fire has such intense heat while other substances do not), the sweetness of sugar is natural, and so are Brahman’s powers innate and inconceivable. These natural and inexplicable powers enable Brahman, though nirguṇa (devoid of material qualities), indivisible, pure, and spotless, to perform acts of creation and other cosmic functions, while remaining untouched, pure, and unaffected.”
Scriptural Evidence
The scriptures also provide evidence for this:
“किं स्विद्वनं क उ स वृक्ष आसीद् यतो द्यावा पृथिवी निष्टतक्षुः पृच्छते दु तद्यदध्यतिष्ठद्वनानि धारयन।ब्रह्म वनं ब्रह्म स वृक्ष आसीद् यतो द्यावा पृथिवी निष्टतक्षुः। मनीषिणो मनसा प्रब्रवीमि वो ब्रह्माध्यतिष्ठद् भुवनानि धारय॥” (Rig Veda 10.81.4 and Taittirīya Brāhmana 2.8.9.6)
“O wise ones! I ask, what is the forest from which heaven and earth have emanated? And what is the tree upon which the Supreme Lord has established Himself to sustain the entire universe? Brahman is that forest, and Brahman is that tree from which heaven and earth have emerged. O wise ones ! Brahman stood there, supporting the worlds and abides in them.”
In the commentary on the Brahma Sūtra “आत्मनि चैवं विचित्राश्च हि ” (2.1.28), Śrīpāda Madhvācārya also cites scriptural evidence that reveals Brahman’s inconceivable powers. The cited verse is:
“विचित्रशक्तिः पुरुषः पुराणः न चान्येषां शक्तयस्तादृशाः स्युः। एको वशी सर्वभूतान्तरात्मा सर्वान् देवानेक एवानुविष्टः॥” (Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad, quoted in Mādhva Brahma-sūtra-bhāṣya, as referenced in Sarvasaṁvādinī, pg.144)
“That eternal Puruṣa possesses diverse and extraordinary powers. None other possesses such powers as He does. He is one, the controller, the inner self of all beings, and the one who pervades all gods as their essence.”
This clearly illustrates that Brahman, being endowed with inconceivable and extraordinary powers, effortlessly executes creation, sustenance, and dissolution while remaining transcendental and unaffected by these processes.
From the aforementioned commentaries and the scriptural evidence (śruti and smṛti), it becomes evident that Parabrahman, without undergoing any transformation (pariṇāma or vikṛti), manifests as the form of the world through His inconceivable potency (acintya-śakti).
Brahman remains unchanged even as He manifests in the form of the world
From the previous discussions on the Brahma Sūtra commentaries and the scriptural statements cited therein, it is understood that the paradoxical and mysterious potency of Parabrahman enables Him to manifest as the world while remaining completely unchanged in His essential nature.
The śruti and smṛti texts have also spoken about His inconceivable potency. For example, Vyāsadeva mentions this in the Brahma Sūtra:
“आत्मनि चैवं विचित्राश्च हि” (२।१।२८)।
(“This Ātman verily possesses wonderful potencies”)
Similarly, the śruti states:
“तदात्मानं स्वयमकुरुत।” (तैत्तिरीय उपनिषद्, ब्रह्मानन्दवल्ली, ७।१४)।
(“Brahman created Itself in the form of the world by Itself”)
The Brahma Sūtra also states:
“आत्मकृतेः परिणामात्” (१।४।२६)।
(“Brahman Himself modified into the form of the world.”)
In the Brahma Sūtra:
“कृत्त्स्नप्रसक्तिनिरवयवत्वशब्दकोपो वा।” (२।१।२६)।
[Vyāsadeva addresses and resolves the objection that accepting Brahman’s transformation into the world contradicts scriptural statements about His partlessness (niravayavatva).]
Further, in another sūtra, Vyāsadeva states:
“श्रुतेस्तु शब्दमूलत्वात्” (२।१।२७)।
(“Scriptural authority establishes that even though Brahman manifests as the world, He does not undergo total transformation, nor does any part of Him transform.”)
The scriptural assertion of Brahman’s partlessness (niravayavatva) remains valid because Brahman is consciousness by nature (cid-rūpa) and indivisible. Since Brahman is omnipresent and indivisible, He cannot have parts like a fragmented rock. The idea of parts applies only to finite, material entities with physical forms. As Brahman lacks a material form, He cannot possess such parts, and hence, the assumption that any part of Him has transformed into the world is invalid.
Key Conclusion
The essence is that Brahman, while manifesting as the world, does not undergo transformation (pariṇāma) or alteration (vikṛti). This must be accepted because the śruti declares it to be so:
“श्रुतेस्तु शब्दमूलत्वात्”
(“The nature of Brahman can only be understood through scriptural evidence; it is beyond other means of proof.”)
Objection
One might ask: How can Brahman remain unchanged while manifesting as the world? From our worldly experience, we observe that when clay transforms into pots or other objects, the clay undergoes a change. The portion of clay that becomes the pot no longer retains its original state. Similarly, how can Brahman remain unchanged when manifesting as the world?
Response
The answer to this question is as follows:
Firstly, our experiences are rooted in the material world and its objects. We have no experience of that which transcends nature and is beyond the material. Furthermore, our material reasoning and intelligence cannot access or comprehend the transcendental realm. Thus, applying judgments about transcendental objects based on examples from material objects is inappropriate. The material and transcendental are not of the same nature. This is why the scriptures state that anything beyond nature is acintya (inconceivable), beyond the reach of our thoughts. Nothing about such inconceivable objects can be determined through material reasoning based on worldly experiences, and it is therefore improper to apply such reasoning to them.
As stated in the Mahābhārata:
“अचिन्त्याः खलु ये भावाः न तांस् तर्केण योजयेत्।प्रकृतिभ्यः परं यत्तु तदचिन्तस्य लक्षणम्।।”(“Those entities that are inconceivable should not be subjected to reasoning. That which transcends nature is the characteristic of the inconceivable.”)
Secondly, material objects like clay are the result of transformation (vikāra), and hence, they possess the quality of being transformable (vikāra-dharmī). Clay and other such material substances are produced as transformations of nature and are inherently subject to change. Because of this, when material objects like clay are transformed into forms like pots, they undergo alteration and lose their original state.
However, Brahman is not the result of any transformation (vikāra-jāta), nor is He subject to the qualities of transformation (vikāra-dharmī). Brahman is not born from the transformation of nature or any other substance. He is beginningless (anādi) and self-existent (svayam-siddha). The nature of Brahman is fundamentally distinct from the nature of material objects. Thus, attempting to draw conclusions about Brahman by comparing Him to material objects like clay is baseless.
By His very nature, Brahman is immutable (nirvikāra); no transformation or alteration is possible in Him. Therefore, even when He manifests as the world through His inconceivable potency (acintya-śakti), He remains unchanged in His essential nature. The intrinsic nature of any entity can never be altered.
Thirdly, even in the material world, which is inherently subject to transformation, there are examples of objects that retain their essence while appearing in a different form. Śrīpāda Śaṅkara, in his commentary on the Brahma Sūtra “श्रुतेस्तु शब्दमूलत्वात्” (2.1.27), also refers to the inconceivable powers of worldly objects like gems, mantras, and medicines. He writes:
“लौकिकानामपि मणिमन्त्रौषधिप्रभृतीनां देशकालनिमित्तवैचित्र्यवशाच्छक्तयो विरुद्धानेककार्यविषया दृश्यन्ते।”
(“Even in the material world, gems, mantras, medicines, and such objects are observed to produce various extraordinary and opposing effects due to differences in time, place, and circumstance.”)
Scriptural accounts also mention the inconceivable potency of gems and similar objects. For example, the Śrīmad Bhāgavatam refers to the Syamantaka jewel, which produces eight bhāras (measures) of gold daily without undergoing any alteration:
“दिने दिने स्वर्णभारानष्टौ स सृजति प्रभो।” (Śrīmad Bhāgavatam, 10.56.11)
This same fact is also mentioned in the Śrī Caitanya-caritāmṛta:
‘পরিণামবাদ’ ব্যাসসূত্রের সম্মত । অচিন্ত্যশক্তি ঈশ্বর জগদ্রূপে পরিণত ||
মণি যৈছে অবিকৃতে প্রসবে হেমভার । জগদ্রূপ হয় ঈশ্বর, তবু অবিকার ॥
“By His inconceivable potency (acintya-śakti), the Lord transforms into the form of the world as is supported in Vyāsa’s Brahma Sūtras.Just as a jewel remains unchanged while producing gold,So too does the Lord, though manifesting as the world, remain immutable.”(Śrī Caitanya-caritāmṛta, Madhya-līlā, 6.154-155.)
Another example from the material world is that of the spider (ūrṇanābhi). A spider spins its web from its own body and yet remains unchanged.
“यथोर्णनाभिः सृजते गृह्णते च। यथा पृथिव्यामोषधयः संभवन्ति। यथा सतः पुरुषात् केशलोमानि। तथाऽक्षरात् संभवतीह विश्वम्।”(Muṇḍaka Upaniṣad, 1.1.7)
“Just as the spider produces and retracts its web from its body,Just as herbs and plants grow from the earth,Just as hair and nails grow from the living being,So too does this universe emerge from the immutable Brahman.”
Even material objects like gems and spiders, which are inherently subject to transformation, exhibit such inconceivable potency that they can produce other entities from their own essence while remaining unchanged. Then, is it surprising that Brahman, with His inconceivable potency (acintya-śakti), can manifest as the world while remaining unchanged in His own essence?
অবিচিন্ত্যশক্তিযুক্ত শ্রীভগবান্ । ইচ্ছায় জগদ্রূপে পায় পরিণাম ॥
তথাপি অচিন্ত্যশক্ত্যে হয় অবিকারী । প্রাকৃত চিন্তামণি তাহে দৃষ্টান্ত যে ধরি ॥
নানা রত্নরাশি হয় চিন্তামণি হৈতে । তথাপিহ মণি রহে স্বরূপে অবিকৃতে ॥
প্রাকৃতবস্তুতে যদি অচিন্ত্যশক্তি হয় । ঈশ্বরের অচিন্ত্যশক্তি ইথে কি বিস্ময় ॥
“The Supreme Lord, endowed with inexplicable and paradoxical potency, by His will, transforms into the form of the world. Yet, due to His inconceivable power, He remains immutable. The material Chintāmaṇi (wish-fulfilling gem) serves as an example. Various jewels emerge from the Chintāmaṇi. Yet the Chintāmaṇi remains unchanged in its form. If such material objects can possess inconceivable potency, why be surprised at the inconceivable potency of the Lord?” (Śrī Caitanya-caritāmṛta, Ādi-līlā, 7.117-123.)
The Transformation is Not of Brahman’s Essence, But of His Potency
It has been said that Brahman is not subject to transformation (vikāra), meaning He is not inherently prone to change or modification. Yet, He manifests as the world. How can this be possible? How can the unchangeable undergo transformation? And, having transformed, how can He remain immutable?
The idea that the immutable undergoes transformation while remaining unchanged seems contradictory. Certainly, the Supreme Brahman embodies opposing qualities, and He is endowed with inconceivable potency—this is true. Furthermore, it is to be accepted due to the primacy of Scriptural statements over logic as stated in the Brahma Sūtra:
“श्रुतेस्तु शब्दमूलत्वात्” (Brahma-sūtra 2.1.27)
(“Since scriptural testimony is the basis of knowledge, whatever the śruti says must be accepted as true.”).
However, a mind rooted in logical reasoning finds it difficult to reconcile these ideas.
Śrīpāda Jīva Gosvāmī has offered a resolution to this problem that seems capable of satisfying even the reasoning mind. His resolution upholds the authority of scripture and also appeals to the logic-seeking intellect.
Śrīpāda Jīva Gosvāmī explains that in the context of Pariṇāmavāda (the doctrine of transformation), it is not Brahman’s essence (svarūpa) that undergoes transformation; rather, it is Brahman’s potency (śakti) that transforms. How he arrived at this conclusion while maintaining consistency with the smṛti, śruti, and Brahma Sūtras is demonstrated below.
What is Pariṇāma (Transformation)?
To follow Śrī Jīva’s line of reasoning, it is first necessary to understand the meaning of the term pariṇāma (transformations):
- The First Type of Transformation: “प्रकृतेरन्यथाभावः” – A change in the state of a substance without altering its essence. For example, the change in appearance of the face into a red hue caused by anger (krodha–raktatā). In this type of transformation, the original substance (the face) does not change or lose its identity. The face remains as it is, but due to the influence of anger, redness manifests on it. Here, the redness is the pariṇāma or transformation of the face.
- The Second Type of Transformation: “प्रकृतिध्वंसजन्यविकारः” – A change in the state of a substance that destroys its original nature. For example, the transformation of wood into ash (kāṣṭhasya vikāro bhasmaḥ) or clay into a pot (mṛtpiṇḍasya vikāro ghaṭaḥ). In the former case, the original substance is destroyed and no longer exists in its prior state. When wood is burned to ash with the help of fire, the wood ceases to exist. Similarly, in the latter case, when clay is shaped into a pot by a potter, the original shape of the lump of clay no longer exists.
These two types of transformation are described in the Śabdakalpadrūma lexicon:
“परिणामः (परि+नम्+घञ् ,भावे ) (पुं ) विकारः। प्रकृतेरन्यथाभावः। यथा-मुखस्य विकारः क्रोधरक्तता। केचित्तु प्रकृतिध्वंसजन्यविकारः। यथा-काष्ठस्य विकारो भस्म, मृद्पिण्डस्य घट इति। इत्यमरभट्टः।”
What is meant by Modification in the Doctrine of Parināmavāda?
It is now necessary to determine which type of modification, among the two described above, is referred to in the doctrine of pariṇāmavāda as taught by the śruti.
In response to the objection raised in the Brahma Sūtra:
“कृत्त्स्नप्रसक्तिनिरवयवत्वशब्दकोपो वा” (२।१।२६),
Vyāsadeva replies in the next sūtra:
“श्रुतेस्तु शब्दमूलत्वात्” (२।१।२७)
and further elaborates it in:
“आत्मनि चैवं विचित्राश्च हि ” (२।१।२८)।
In these sūtras, Vyāsadeva clarifies that Brahman manifests as the world through Its translogical potency (acintya-śakti) without undergoing any change (vikāra) in Its essential nature. Brahman, while manifesting as the world, remains fully intact in His essence, and His original nature is not destroyed.
From this, it is clear that the second type of transformation—where the original substance is destroyed (prakṛti-dhvaṁsa-janya-vikāraḥ)—is not applicable to Brahman in the context of pariṇāmavāda.
Key Insight
Śrī Jīva Gosvāmī argues that Brahman’s transformation into the world does not involve a change in Its essence (svarūpa). Rather, it is Its potency (śakti) that undergoes transformation. This resolution aligns with both scripture and logic, upholding the transcendental and immutable nature of Brahman while accounting for the apparent manifestation of the material world.
Additionally, from scriptural statements such as:
“यः पृथिव्यां तिष्ठन्पृथिव्या अन्तरः, यं पृथिवी न वेद, यस्य पृथिवी शरीरं, यः पृथिवीमन्तरो यमयति, एष त आत्मान्तर्याम्यमृतः” (Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad, 3.7.3-224)
[“He who abides in the earth, within the earth, whom the earth does not know, whose body is the earth, who controls the earth from within, he is the inner controller, the immortal one.”];
“सेयं देवतैक्षत हन्ताहमिमास्तिस्रो देवता अनेन जीवेनात्मनानुप्रविश्य नामरूपे व्याकरोवाणि।” (Chāndogya Upaniṣad, 6.3)
[“This Deity thought, ‘Let Me enter these three gods with this living entity (who is My own) self and manifest names and forms.”];
and
“एतावानस्य महिमा ततो ज्यायांश्च पुरुषः। पादोऽस्य विश्वा भूतानि त्रिपादस्यामृतं दिवि।” (Chāndogya Upaniṣad, 3.12.6)
[”The greatness of the Puruṣa is this much, and yet the Puruṣa is greater than this. One part of Him encompasses all beings, three parts of him are the immortal and transcendental realms.”]
From these pramānas, it is understood that Brahman, while manifesting as the world, remains in His own essence. From this, it becomes clear that among the two types of modification, the first type (where the original substance is not destroyed) is what Vyāsadeva intends in the doctrine of parināmavāda.
In the discussion of parināmavāda, Śrīpāda Jīva Gosvāmī also accepts the first type of transformation as Vyāsadeva’s intended meaning. He writes:
“तस्मात् तत्त्वतोऽन्यथा भावः परिणामः’ इत्येव लक्षणम् ,न तु तत्त्वस्य।”
(Sarva-saṁvādinī, Bengali Literary Society Edition, page 143)
“Therefore, the characteristic of transformation (parināma) is the appearance of a different state from the original substance (tattva), but not the appearance of a different state(transformation of the nature) of the original substance itself.”
For example, in the previously mentioned lexical definition, the redness of the face due to anger (krodha-raktatā) is a manifestation of a different state from the face, but the face itself remains unchanged. Similarly, the gold produced by the Syamantaka jewel is a separate entity from the jewel itself, which remains unchanged.
Another notable example is that of the spider (ūrṇanābhi). The spider remains unaltered while it spins its web. The web is a separate entity from the spider itself. From these examples, it is clear that Śrīpāda Jīva Gosvāmī has accepted the first type of transformation.
In the statement “न तु तत्त्वस्य “ (“but not the transformation of the original substance into a different state”), Śrī Jīva explicitly rejects the second type of transformation. In the second type, the original substance itself changes into another form and loses its own identity, as when wood is transformed into ash. Śrī Jīva clarifies that such transformation is not intended in parināmavāda.
When the first type of transformation is accepted, it becomes easy to understand how Brahman, while manifesting as the world, remains unchanged in His essence. This aligns with scriptural statements like:
“तदात्मानं स्वयमकुरुत” (“It created Itself in the form of the world by Itself alone”)
and
“आत्मकृतेः परिणामात्” (“Brahman is the operative as well as material cause of the world on account of making Himself so, and modifying Himself into the world“),
as found in the Upaniṣads and Vedānta Sūtras.
It also satisfies the reasoning mind through examples from the material world, such as the Syamantaka jewel, the spider (ūrṇanābhi), or the redness of a face due to anger. These examples demonstrate how something can manifest another state while remaining unchanged, thereby addressing the logical concerns of rational thinkers.
From the above discussion, it is understood that in the process of creating the world, Brahman remains unchanged in His essence.
Brahman’s Māyā-śakti Transforms into the World
In the context of the first type of transformation previously discussed, let us reconsider the examples cited from the material world.
The gold produced by the Syamantaka jewel is not something separate or unrelated to the jewel itself; it is a transformation of a substance inherently connected to the jewel. Similarly, the web spun by the spider (ūrṇanābhi) is not an independent substance unrelated to the spider but a transformation of something inherently connected to the spider. The redness caused by anger (krodha-raktatā) in the face is also a result of the activity of blood that is inherently connected to the face.
In the same way, the world, which originates from Brahman, must be a transformation of something inherently connected to Brahman, not something separate or unrelated to Him. The śruti declares:
“सर्वं खल्विदं ब्रह्म “ (“Indeed, all this is Brahman”) and
“ऐतदात्म्यमिदं सर्वम् “ (“All this has That(Brahman) as their Self”).
The world is also described as a modification of Brahman. Therefore, we must identify what substance inherently connected to Brahman modifies into the world.
Such a substance must have at least two characteristics:
- The capacity for modification: The substance must be capable of transformation under certain conditions.
- Non-distinction from Brahman: The substance, in essence, must not be distinct from or other than Brahman (Brahmātirikta). If it were distinct from Brahman, its modification could not be described as a modification of Brahman.
Such a substance is Prakṛti.
In the earlier section (3015), while discussing the “nature of Prakṛti,” it was stated that inert prakṛti has the capacity for modification when empowered through Brahman’s conscious potency (cit-śakti). This is the inherent nature of Prakṛti. Therefore, Prakṛti fulfills the first criterion (capacity for transformation).
Prakṛti also fulfills the second criterion (non-distinction from Brahman), because inert prakṛti is a śakti of Parabrahman, specifically Its external energy (bahiraṅgā-śakti). Between energy (śakti) and the possessor of energy (śaktimān), both distinction and non-distinction exist. From the perspective of non-distinction, the actions of energy are considered the actions of its possessor. For instance, the victory or defeat of a king’s army is considered the victory or defeat of the king himself.
Thus, it is understood that this world is a transformation of Brahman’s external māyā-śakti, empowered by His conscious potency (cit-śakti).
In the fifth chapter, smṛti and śruti evidence was cited to demonstrate that the origin of the world is from prakṛti (external māyā) transformed by the influence of Brahman’s conscious potency. In the fourth chapter, smṛti and śruti evidence was cited to show that prakṛti, empowered by Brahman’s conscious potency, acts as the secondary instrumental cause (nimitta-kāraṇa) and secondary material cause (upādāna-kāraṇa) of the world. Thus, it is evident that the world is a modification of Māyā.
In the commentary on the Brahma Sūtra “आत्मकृतेः परिणामात् ” (1.4.26), Govinda Bhāṣyakāra states:
“Brahman possesses Parā-śakti (supreme energy), Kṣetrajña-śakti/Jīva-śakti (individual conscious energy), and Māyā-śakti(illusory energy). From this, it becomes evident that the attributes of being both the instrumental (nimitta) and material (upādāna) causes of creation are aspects of Brahman.
“तस्य निमित्तत्वञ्चोपादानत्वञ्चाभिधीयते” (“Brahman is proclaimed as both the instrumental and material cause.”)
“तत्राद्यं पराख्यशक्तिमद्रूपेण। द्वितीयन्तु तदन्यशक्तिद्वयद्वारैव।”
(“As the possessor of supreme energy (para-śakti), Brahman is the instrumental cause, and through Its other potencies, It is the material cause.”)
The commentator further states:
“एवं च निमित्तं कूटस्थम्। उपादानं तु परिणामीति। सूक्ष्मप्रकृतिकं कर्तृ। स्थूलप्रकृतिकं कर्म। इत्येकस्यैव तत्तच्च सिद्धम्।”
(“Thus, the instrumental cause is immutable (kūṭastha), while the material cause undergoes transformation (pariṇāmī). Brahman qualified by the subtle prakṛti (i.e., śaktis that have not yet actualised) acts as the kartṛ/doer (i.e., instrumental and material cause), and the gross prakṛti (i.e., śaktis whose effects have materialized) acts as the karma/deed(i.e., the effect in the form of the world). In this way, both the instrumental and material causality, as well as the roles of subtle and gross prakṛti, are established within the singular Brahman.”)
From this explanation, it becomes clear that it is Brahman’s Māyā-śakti that undergoes transformation.
Śrī Jīva Gosvāmī’s Perspective
Śrīpāda Jīva Gosvāmī, in his Paramātma Sandarbha, writes:
“तत्र चापरिणतस्तैः सतोऽचिन्त्यया तया शक्त्या परिणाम इत्यसौ सन्मात्रतावभासमान-स्वरूप-व्यूह-रूप-द्रव्याख्यशक्तिरूपेणैव परिणमते, न तु स्वरूपेण इति गम्यते। यथैव चिन्तामणिः। अतस्तन्मूलत्वात् न परमात्मोपादानतासम्प्रतिपत्ति भङ्गः।”
(Paramātma Sandarbha, Anuccheda 58.2)
Meaning: “It was concluded (in Bhagavat Sandarbha) that the absolutely unmodified Existent (Paramātman) is modified by His own paradoxical(acintya) śakti. By this it is to be understood that the modification undergone by Paramātman is not that of His essential being (svarūpa); rather, it is only that of His śakti called dravya [i.e., elementary substance, or matter] in the form of the evolutes (vyūha) emanating from but a semblance of His essential being (sat-mātra-ābhāsa), endowed with the quality of existence (sat) alone. The cintāmaṇi gem also functions similarly. Therefore, because the world is rooted in Paramātman, the principle that He is its upādāna, or constituting cause, is not disproven.”
Essentially he says that Brahman remains immutable in His essence (svarūpa), but through His inconceivable potency (acintya-śakti), He, as Pure essential existence (Sat-svarūpa), though immutable, undergoes modification only in the form of His śakti, which is an evolute, merely as a semblance of His Sat-svarūpa (vyūha-rūpī san-mātra-ābhāsa dravyākhyā-śakti), not His essential nature. For example, the cintāmaṇi jewel produces various jewels without undergoing any transformation itself. Because, Paramātman is the root-condition and substratum for the existence of Dravyākhyā-śakti(Māyā–śakti), that is why, Paramātman is described as upādāna-kāraṇa of the world.
Śrī Jīva Gosvāmī further clarifies this with the following verse from the Śrīmad Bhāgavatam:
“प्रकृतिर्यस्योपादानमाधारः पुरुषः परः।सतोऽभिव्यञ्जकः कालो ब्रह्म तन्त्रितयं ह्यहम्॥”(Śrīmad Bhāgavatam, 11.24.19)
In his commentary, he explains:
“अत एव कचित् अन्य ब्रह्मोपादानत्वं कचित् प्रधानोपादानत्वं च क्रियते। तत्र सा मायाख्या परिणामशक्तिश्च द्विविधा वर्ण्यते। निमित्तांशो माया, उपादानांशः प्रधानमिति। तत्र केवलाशक्तिः निमित्तम्। तद्व्यूहमयी चोपादानमिति विवेकः।”
(“Thus, in some contexts, Brahman is described as the material cause (upādāna), and in others, prakṛti (as māyā) is described as the material cause. This māyā-śakti, known as the power of transformation (pariṇāma-śakti), has two aspects: māyā (jīva-māyā) as the secondary instrumental cause, and pradhāna (guṇa-māyā) as the secondary material cause. The transformation occurs in the form of evolutes (vyūhamayī) as Pradhāna, while Brahman Itself remains unchanged.”)
Viśvanātha Cakravartī’s Commentary
Śrīpāda Viśvanātha Cakravartī, in his commentary on the above verse, writes:
“अस्य सतः कार्यस्योपादानं या प्रकृतिः प्रसिद्धा, यश्चास्य आधारः केशांचिन्मते अधिष्ठानकारणं पुरुषः, यश्च गुणक्षोभेनाभिव्यञ्जकः कालः निमित्तम्। तन्त्रितयं ब्रह्मरूपोहमेव प्रकृतेः शक्तित्वात्, पुरुषस्य मदंशत्वात्, कालस्य मच्चेष्टरूपत्वात् तन्त्रितयमहमेव।”
“एवञ्च प्रकृतेर्ज्जगदुपादानत्वादेव मम जगदुपादानत्वम्। किञ्च। तस्या विकारित्वेऽपि न मे विकारित्वं, तस्या मच्छक्तित्वेऽपि मत्स्वरूपशक्तित्वाभावात्। किन्तु बहिरङ्गशक्तित्वमेव मत्स्वरूपस्य मायातीतत्वेन सर्वशास्त्रप्रसिद्धेः। “
“Some people object by saying that they consider the well-known Prakṛti as the material cause (upādāna) of the manifest creation (kārya). Some consider the Supreme Person (Puruṣa) to be the substratum (adhiṣṭhāna-kāraṇa), and time (Kāla) to be the agitator of the guṇas and the instrumental cause (nimitta).
(To this, Śrī Kṛṣṇa responds by uttering the quoted Bhāgavatam shloka): Prakṛti, Parama-Puruṣa, and Time—these three are Me alone, who is Brahman[Bhagavān], for Prakṛti is My potency, the Puruṣa is My part (aṁśa), and time is My activity (ceṣṭā). Thus, these three are, in essence, Me. Therefore, since Prakṛti is the material cause of the world, I am also its material cause. However, although Prakṛti undergoes transformation, I do not, because Prakṛti is My potency but not My consubstantial essential potency (Svarūpa-śakti). It is merely My non-essential external potency (Bahiraṅgā-śakti). Since I transcend Māyā, I am not affected by the transformations of My external potency.”
Śrī Jīva Gosvāmī’s Explanation
Śrīpāda Jīva Gosvāmī, in his earlier statement from Paramātma Sandarbha, essentially explains that Parabrahman does not undergo transformation in His essential nature (svarūpa); rather, it is in the form of His external energy (Bahiraṅgā-śakti) that He manifests transformation. It is His energy (śakti)—prakṛti—that transforms into the form of the universe, while Brahman Himself remains unchanged in His essence. Since prakṛti is His energy, the material causality (upādāna-kāraṇa) of prakṛti is essentially the material causality of Brahman. Thus, the śruti and Brahma Sūtras which describe Brahman as the material cause of the universe are also validated.
The śruti statement “मायां तु प्रकृतिं विद्यान्” (“Know that Māyā is prakṛti”) from the Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad (4.10) affirms the material causality of Māyā.
Similarly, Brahman has also been described as the material cause in other contexts (as in the earlier sections, refer to Section 308-10). From this, it becomes evident that Brahman’s material causality is realized through the material causality of Māyā or prakṛti.
The World, though being an effect of Brahman is not identical in nature to Brahman
In Paramātma sandarbha Anuccheda 70.2, Sri Jīva Goswami clarifies that the world although an effect of Brahman is not identical to Brahman in nature, unlike how golden earrings though appearing with a different form than its cause-the original lump of gold, from which it was fashioned, is nevertheless of identical nature to its cause. He bases his explanation on the ‘Shruti-stuti’ section of Srimad Bhāgavatam:
“तदेवं स्थितेऽपि पुनराशङ्कते – ननु सदुपादानं जगत् कथं तद्वदनश्वरतामपि भजन् न खलु सत् स्यात् ? यदि च नश्वरं स्यात् तर्हि कथं शुक्तिरजतवदव्यभिचारित्वेन केवलविवर्त्तान्तःपाति न स्यात् ?”
[Although the cause is accepted as the potential state of the effect], a further doubt is raised. Why should the world, whose constituent cause (upādāna) is real, not also share the same quality of imperishability as its upādāna and be considered real, or sat? And if it should be perishable, would it not be more appropriately described according to vivarta-vāda, due to being exactly like the [illusory appearance of] silver in an oyster shell?]
This question is raised and answered by the Śrutis:
“सत इदमुत्थितं सदिति चेन् ननु तर्कहतं व्यभिचरति क्व च क्व च मृषा न तथोभययुक् । व्यवहृतये विकल्प इषितोऽन्धपरम्परया भ्रमयति भारती त उरुवृत्तिभिरुक्थजडान् ॥”
[If it is argued that this world is real because it has arisen from the Real, then is this not a logical fallacy? [Response:] Sometimes, there is a deviation in this principle [of an effect corresponding to the nature of its cause] and sometimes the effect is false [even when the cause is real], but not so where the effect shares both characteristics [i.e., perceptibility and the causal efficiency to produce an action or event]. The false cognition [of the world] is sought for the sake of worldly transactions perpetuated through the blind succession of past conventions. Your words [in the śāstra] through their manifold powers of expression delude those whose intelligence is dulled by the formal structure of Vedic hymnody. (SB 10.87.36)
“इदं विश्व धर्मि सदिति साध्यो धर्मः सत उत्पन्नत्वात् यद् यत उत्पन्नं तत् खलु तदात्मकमेव दृष्टं यथा कनकादुत्पन्नं कुण्डलादिकं तदात्मकं तद्वत् ।”
[The pronoun idam (this) refers to the world, which is the subject term (dharmi); that it is real (sat) is the predicate (dharma) to be inferred (sādhya) [by the argument that] it has arisen from the Reality, sat. It is indeed seen that whatever is generated has the same nature as its source. Just as earrings made from gold are of the nature of gold (tad-atmaka), so too the world is also like that.]
“अत्रोत्थितमेव न तु शुक्तौ रजतमिव तत्रारोपितमिति सिद्धान्तिनः स्वमतमनूदितम् । नैवेत्याहुः ननु तर्कहतमिति । अपादाननिर्देशेन भेदप्रतीतेर्विरुद्धहेतुत्वात् ।”
[By saying that the world has arisen (utthita), it is being emphasized that it is not superimposed like silver on an oys-ter shell. [Up to this point in the argument given above,] the Śrutis have [simply] repeated the siddhānti, or the proponent’s argument, which is their own view (sva-mata) [i.e., pariņāma-vāda]. Then [arguing the counter position of vivarta-vāda] they deny this by asking [rhetorically]: “Is this not against logic?” since the word satah (“from reality”), being in the ablative case, implies a difference between the source and the object produced, which is a case of contradictory reasoning (viruddha-hetu) [i.e., the very reason given to prove the identity of cause and effect turns out to contradict it instead].
“ननु नाभेदं साधयामः किन्तु तत उत्पन्नत्वेन कुण्डलादिवद् भेदमनूद्य प्रतिषेधामः ।”
[The Śrutis then raise a further objection from the point of view of vivarta-vāda:] “We are not trying to establish non-distinction [between cause and effect or between God and the world] here. Rather, because [the world] arises from the Reality, as an earring [is manufactured from gold], we will first establish the difference and then deny it. This will then imply non-difference, will it not?”]
“तत्राभेद एव स्यादित्याशङ्क्यानैकान्तिकत्वेन हेतुं दूषयन्ति “व्यभिचरति क्व च” इति । क्व च कुत्रापि कारणधर्मानुगतिर्व्यभिचरति । कार्यकारणधर्मस्य सर्वांशेनानुगतं भवतीति नियमो न विद्यत इत्यर्थः । दहनाद्युद्भवे प्रभादौ दाहकत्वादिधर्मादर्शनादिति भावः ।”
[(Now the Śrutis revert to their own view of pariņāma-vāda.) Expecting this line of argument, the Śrutis find fault in the reasoning, because it contains the fallacy known as anaikāntika-hetu [wherein the concomitance of the reason (hetu) with that which it attempts to prove (the sādhya) is not absolute, known in Western logic as the fallacy of the undistributed middle]: They say, “Sometimes there is a deviation in this principle” (vyabhicarati kva ca), meaning that in some instances, the characteristics of a cause do not follow into the effect. In other words, there is no rule that an effect must correspond in every single aspect with the attributes of its cause; for example, light arises from fire but does not have the capacity to burn.]
In Vişnu Purāņa, it is said:
द्वे रूपे ब्रह्मणस्तस्य मूर्त चामूर्तमेव च । क्षराक्षरस्वरूपे ते सर्वभूतेष्ववस्थिते ॥ अक्षरं तत्परं ब्रह्म क्षरं सर्वमिदं जगत् ॥ (Vişnu Purāņa 1.22.53-54)
[The Absolute Reality (Brahman) has two features mūrta, with form, and amürta, formless. These two features can be either perishable or imperishable in nature, and are situated in all living beings. The Supreme Brahman is imperishable, akşara, and this entire cosmos is the perishable, kşara.]
एकदेशस्थितस्याग्नेज्योत्स्रा विस्तारिणी यथा । परस्य ब्रह्मणः शक्तिस्तथेदमखिलं जगत् ॥ (Vişnu Purāņa 1.22.55)
[Just as the light of a fire situated in one place is diffused all around, so also the potency of the Supreme Brahman pervades this whole universe.]
इत्येतदेवं व्याख्यातं श्रीस्वामिभिरेव श्रीविष्णुपुराणे “नन्वक्षरस्य परब्रह्मणस्तद्विलक्षणं क्षररूपं कथं स्यात् ? इत्याशङ्ङ्क्य दृष्टान्तेनोपपादयति – एकदेशेति । प्रादेशिकस्या-ग्नेर्दीपादेर्दाहकस्यापि तद्विलक्षणा ज्योत्स्रा प्रभा यथा तत्प्रकाशविस्तारस्तथा ब्रह्मणः शक्तिकृतविस्तार इदमखिलं जगत्” (वि० पु०१।२२।५४) इति ।
[(Śrīdhara) Svāmī comments on this in the following manner: “This verse is spoken in response to the anticipated question [arising from the two preceding verses], ‘How can the imperishable Supreme Brahman have a perishable form, different from Itself? [Parāśara] here substantiates [his earlier statement] with the help of an example. Just as the burning capacity of a fire or lamp situated in one location gives rise to light or radiance that is distinct in quality, which then spreads all around [and is not limited to its source], similarly this whole universe is the expansion of the potency of Brahman.”]
The second verse cited from Visnu Purana, along with Sridhara Svami’s comments, illustrates how an effect can have characteristics different from those of its cause. Fire is situated in one place, but the light emanating from it spreads all around. Similarly, fire burns an inflammable object, but light does not. In the same manner, Bhagavan’s potencies, such as the world, issue forth from Him. The world is different from Brahman in the sense that it is not imperishable, and similar to Him in that it is not imaginary.
Śrī Rāmānuja’s Perspective
In his commentary on the Brahma Sūtra “तदनन्यत्वमारम्भणशब्दादिभ्यः” (2.1.14), Śrīpāda Rāmānuja states:
“शरीरभूत-चिदचिद्वस्तुगताः सर्वे विकाराः पुरुषार्थाश्च इति ब्रह्मणे। निरवद्यत्वं कल्याणगुणाकरत्वं च सुस्थितम्।”
(“All transformations, defects, and imperfections belong to the sentient and insentient entities that constitute Brahman’s body (śarīra). Therefore, Brahman remains free from all faults and is the repository of all auspicious qualities.”)
Here, Śrīpāda Rāmānuja explains that all transformations occur within the realm of sentient (cit) and insentient (acit) entities. Sentient entities refer to jīvātmās, while insentient entities refer to prakṛti or external māyā. It is māyā that undergoes transformation, while Brahman remains unaltered. The bodies (such as the material forms) experienced by jīvas, which are bound by māyā, are also subject to transformation because they are composed of māyā. This interpretation aligns with Śrīpāda Jīva Gosvāmī’s conclusion as well.
Conclusion
From the above discussion, the following points become clear:
- Brahman’s external energy (bahiraṅgā-śakti), known as prakṛti or māyā, transforms into the world under the influence of His conscious potency (cit-śakti).
- Brahman Himself does not undergo transformation; He remains immutable in His essence (svarūpa).
- The śruti and smṛti support this conclusion, and it is further strengthened by examples from the material world (e.g., the spider (ūrṇanābhi), the jewel, etc.), which satisfy the reasoning mind.
This explanation maintains harmony with both scripture and logic, addressing the concerns of rational thinkers while preserving the transcendental nature of Brahman.
The same triguṇātmikā prakṛti (nature consisting of the three modes of material nature) gives rise to numerous transformations like mahat-tattva and others, ultimately resulting in the creation of the infinitely diverse universe. This diversity in creation is a testimony to the inconceivable potency (acintya-śakti) of Parabrahman. How a singular entity transforms into infinite varieties is beyond human comprehension and is, therefore, considered acintya (inconceivable).
Brahma-Parināmavāda and Śakti-Parināmavāda Are Identical
From the Brahma Sūtras—
“आत्मकृतेः परिणामात् ” (1.4.26), “श्रुतेस्तु शब्दमूलत्वात्” (2.1.27), and “आत्मनि चैवं विचित्राश्च हि ” (2.1.28)—it is understood that Brahman Himself manifests as the world through His inconceivable potency and, despite manifesting as the world, remains unchanged in His essence (svarūpa). This doctrine is called Pariṇāmavāda (the doctrine of transformation). Since it is Brahman who manifests as the world, this can also be referred to as Brahma-Pariṇāmavāda.
Śrīman Mahāprabhu has also said:
অবিচিন্ত্যশক্তিযুক্ত শ্রীভগবান্ । ইচ্ছায় জগদ্রূপে পায় পরিণাম ॥
তথাপি অচিন্ত্যশক্ত্যে হয় অবিকারী । প্রাকৃত চিন্তামণি তাহে দৃষ্টান্ত যে ধরি ॥
নানা রত্নরাশি হয় চিন্তামণি হৈতে । তথাপিহ মণি রহে স্বরূপে অবিকৃতে ॥ (Caitanya-caritāmṛta, Ādi-līlā, 7.117–119)
[“The Supreme Lord, endowed with inconceivable potency, by His will transforms into the form of the world.Yet, due to His inconceivable potency, He remains immutable. The material wish-fulfilling gem (cintāmaṇi) serves as an example.Various jewels emerge from the cintāmaṇi, yet the cintāmaṇi remains unchanged in its essence.”]
The commentators on the aforementioned Brahma Sūtras have also used examples like the cintāmaṇi gem to explain the transformation. Thus, what Śrīman Mahāprabhu has taught aligns with the Brahma-Pariṇāmavāda as described in the Brahma Sūtras.
However, as discussed in the earlier section, Śrīpāda Jīva Gosvāmī has explained that it is Brahman’s external energy (bahiraṅgā-māyā-śakti) that transforms into the world. This explanation corresponds to Śakti-Parināmavāda (the transformation of Brahman’s potency).
Some might think that while the Brahma Sūtras and Śrīman Mahāprabhu refer to Brahma-Parināmavāda, while Śrīpāda Jīva Gosvāmī has introduced a novel concept of Śakti-Pariṇāmavāda.
However, Śrīpāda Jīva Gosvāmī has not introduced any new doctrine. He has clarified that the transformation of Brahman (as stated in Brahma-Pariṇāmavāda) actually refers to the transformation of Brahman’s potency (śakti). This Śakti-Pariṇāmavāda is fully consistent with scriptural teachings.
Harmony Between Brahma-Pariṇāmavāda and Śakti-Parināmavāda
The meaning of Brahma-Pariṇāmavāda as described in the Brahma Sūtras is consistent with Śakti-Pariṇāmavāda. The transformation of Brahman must be understood as the transformation of His potency, not of His essence. This is supported by both śruti and smṛti.
Śrīpāda Jīva Gosvāmī’s explanation, as seen in his reference to cintāmaṇi, confirms that Śrīman Mahāprabhu’s teachings align perfectly with this understanding. There is no contradiction between Brahma-Pariṇāmavāda and Śakti-Pariṇāmavāda, as they are essentially two perspectives on the same truth: Brahman remains immutable, and it is His śakti that transforms into the world.
The Brahma Sūtras are based on the śruti and smṛti. Statements such as
“सच्च त्यच्चाभवत्” (“That Brahman itself became the forms of Effect(sat) and Cause(asat)” – Taittirīya Upaniṣad, Brahmānanda Vallī, 6.14)
and
“तदात्मानं स्वयमकुरुत्” (“That Self modified Itself into the world which is Its own form” – Taittirīya Upaniṣad, Brahmānanda Vallī, 7.14)
These Śrutis indicate that Parabrahman Himself manifests as the universe, meaning that Brahman is the material cause (upādāna-kāraṇa) of the world.
Several Brahma Sūtras that refer to Brahman as the material cause of the universe have already been discussed earlier (in Section 3.10).
However, whether Brahman is the material cause in His essential nature (svarūpa) or in some other form is also clarified in the śruti. The Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad states:
“अस्मान्मायी सृजते विश्वमेतत्। मायां तु प्रकृतिं विद्यान्मायिनं तु महेश्वरम्॥”
(“Know that Māyī, the possessor/controller of Māyā, creates this entire universe through Māyā. Know Māyā to be Prakṛti(the material cause/ingredient; alternatively the word ‘Prakṛti’ used for Māyā, here, indicates that Māyā is not a foreign substance to Brahman, but Its natural śakti) and its controller(Māyin) to be Maheshvara, the Supreme Lord.” – Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad, 4.9-10.)
In this śruti statement, the phrase “मायिनं तु महेश्वरम्” (“The Lord of Māyā is the Supreme Brahman”) identifies Parabrahman as the possessor of Māyā–śakti , while Māyā itself is described as the material cause (prakṛti) of the universe. This clarifies that Brahman is the material cause of the universe not in His essence but in the form of His māyā-śakti. From the perspective of the non-difference between potency (śakti) and its possessor (śaktimān), the modification of the upādānāṁśa of Māyā-śakti (In this case, this refers to actualisation of Māyā’s aspect called Guṇa-māyā/Pradhāna from subtle to gross state) is referred to as the modification of Brahman.
Śrīpāda Jīva Gosvāmī also substantiates this by citing a verse spoken by Parabrahman Śrī Kṛṣṇa in the Śrīmad Bhāgavatam:
“प्रकृतिर्यस्योपादानमाधारः पुरुषः परः ।
सतोऽभिव्यञ्जकः कालो ब्रह्म तत्त्रितयं त्वहम् ॥”
(“Prakṛti is the material cause of this reality(world), the Supreme Person is its substratum, and Time is its manifestor. But that Brahman who encompasses this triad—Prakṛti, Puruṣa and Kāla—is Me.” – Śrīmad Bhāgavatam, 11.24.19.)
From these śruti and smṛti statements, it is understood that Brahman is the material cause of the universe in the form of His external potency, māyā, and that the transformation of māyā-śakti is referred to as the transformation of Brahman.
Brahman’s Modification: The Meaning
Thus, the modification of Brahman as discussed in the Brahma Sūtras, which is firmly based on śruti and smṛti, actually refers to the modification of Brahman’s energy (śakti).
This conclusion aligns with the examples of the cintāmaṇi jewel and the spider (ūrṇanābhi) discussed earlier. Both demonstrate the compatibility of the concept of māyā-śakti’s transformation with logical reasoning.
Śrīpāda Jīva Gosvāmī’s Viewpoint
Therefore, it becomes evident that Śrīpāda Jīva Gosvāmī did not introduce any novel doctrine. He merely clarified that the modification of Brahman (Brahma-Pariṇāmavāda) refers to the modification of His energy (Śakti-Pariṇāmavāda). Thus, Brahma-Pariṇāmavāda and Śakti-Pariṇāmavāda are one and the same.
Chaitanya Siddhanta Parishad 